Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
June 25, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-001324
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
Windfield Estates Corporation
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit a 603-unit residential development, including three mid-rise buildings, three 4-storey stacked townhouse blocks, and a new public park.
Reference Number:
21 229471 NNY 15 OZ and 21 229475 NNY 15 SA
Property Address:
390-400 Woodsworth Road
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-001324
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-001324
OLT Case Name:
Windfield Estates Corporation v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit a 603-unit residential development, including three mid-rise buildings, three 4-storey stacked townhouse blocks, and a new public park.
Reference Number:
21 229471 NNY 15 OZ and 21 229475 NNY 15 SA
Property Address:
390-400 Woodsworth Road
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-001325
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-001324
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S. O. 2006, c. 11 Sched A.
Subject:
City of Toronto Site Plan Approval
Description:
To permit a 603-unit residential development, including three mid-rise buildings, three 4-storey stacked townhouse blocks, and a new public park.
Reference Number:
21 229471 NNY 15 OZ and 21 229475 NNY 15 SA
Property Address:
390-400 Woodsworth Road
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-001326
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-001324
Heard:
May 9, 2024, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Windfield Estates Corporation
Ian Andres
City of Toronto
Adam Ward Jessica Braun (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA on MAY 9, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding appeals filed by Windfield Estates Corporation (“Appellant”) following the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to render decisions within the required timelines on applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a Site Plan for the property municipally known as 390-400 Woodsworth Road in the City.
2The proposal is to permit a 603-unit residential development with a total gross floor area of 47,729 square metres (“sq m”), resulting in a density of 2.26 Floor Space Index, including a total of 2,401 sq m of amenity space (both indoor and outdoor). The proposed amendments would facilitate three mid-rise buildings fronting onto Leslie Street with heights of 10, nine, and eight storeys and three blocks of four-storey back-to-back stacked townhouses fronting onto Woodsworth Road. Included in the townhouse blocks will be 80 three-bedroom rental replacement units.
3The Tribunal received and marked as Exhibit 1, the Affidavit of Service, sworn on April 9, 2024. Having reviewed the document and with no concerns raised at the CMC, the Tribunal is satisfied that proper notice has been given and that no further notice is required in these proceedings.
STATUS REQUESTS
4In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal received three requests for Party status from:
a. York Mills Neighbours Association (“YMNA”);
b. Peter Arrowsmith; and
c. James Li.
5The Tribunal provided a brief overview of the roles and responsibilities of a Party and a Participant. Following questions of clarification from the Tribunal, it was determined that the YMNA was not incorporated and, therefore, was not eligible to be a Party to this matter. A brief discussion ensued, and the Tribunal opted to grant Participant status to the YMNA, with Mr. Akash Sahai acting as the representative.
6Mr. Arrowsmith clarified that although he was a member of the Board of the YMNA, he was applying for Party status as an individual. He stated that he had spoken with many residents regarding various concerns about the proposed development. He stated that he had not engaged any expert witnesses at this point but might do so in the future and that he wanted to keep his options open. He stated that he wanted to cross-examine the witnesses brought by the other Parties and bring forward his own written evidence on behalf of residents who will be affected by the proposal.
7Counsel for the Appellant expressed concerns with Mr. Arrowsmith’s request for Party status as it was unclear from Mr. Arrowsmith’s submissions whether he would actually be acting as an individual, having repeatedly referred to “We” or the YMNA organization. Mr. Andres stated that the Appellant would consent to a grant of Participant status. Counsel for the City had no objection to the request.
8Mr. Li was not present at the CMC.
9Upon consideration, the Tribunal determined that Party status would not be granted to Mr. Arrowsmith or Mr. Li. Despite several opportunities, Mr. Arrowsmith did not provide any compelling reasons as to how his involvement as a Party would assist the Tribunal in adjudicating these matters. Regarding Mr. Li, his absence meant that the Tribunal was not able to ask its questions of clarification regarding his request. In the alternative, the Tribunal granted Participant status to both Mr. Arrowsmith and Mr. Li, which will allow them to express their concerns in writing for the Tribunal’s consideration.
10There were also five written requests for Participant status, submitted to the Tribunal in advance of the CMC, from:
a. Andrew Nicholson;
b. Victoria Colby;
c. Athina Thompson;
d. Ian and Nathalie MacInnis; and,
e. Steve Yudin.
11The concerns raised by the Participants included, but were not limited to: increases in height, massing and density, noise and disruption during construction, eviction and displacement of current residents, lack of affordable housing options in the development proposal, parking and traffic issues, infrastructure and flooding concerns, impact on trees and wildlife, shadow and privacy impacts, lack of conformity with the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-laws, and lack of compatibility with the existing neighbourhood. Upon review and consideration, and with no opposition from the Parties, the Tribunal granted Participant status to all requestors.
12Near the end of the CMC, Ms. Colby raised the issue of whether Mr. Yudin, who was not in attendance, could speak to the concerns of the Windfields Estates Tenant Association (“WETA”) in his Participant statement, as that had been his intent, or whether WETA could be considered for Participant status at this time. After some discussion, the Tribunal determined that Mr. Yudin’s status as an individual Participant would stand but recognized that there might be overlap between his individual concerns and those of WETA. Mr. Andres suggested that if a Participant made statements on behalf of a group, it would be prudent to include that group’s resolution or minutes confirming the Participant’s authority to speak for the group.
13The Tribunal highlights that when an issue is raised in a Participant statement, if it is a genuine land use planning concern, it does not matter from whom it came. The Tribunal also confirms that it carefully reviews and considers all Participant statements in coming to its Decision.
UPDATE
14Mr. Andres stated that the Appellant and the City had worked together in the development of the draft Procedural Order (“PO”), including the Issues List, which was submitted to the Tribunal for consideration prior to the CMC.
15The Parties suggested that 10 days would be required for a Hearing on the Merits of the appeals and suggested that a date in May 2025 would be appropriate, subject to the availability in the Tribunal’s calendar.
16After questions from the Tribunal, Mr. Andres clarified that while the Site Plan appeal was before the Tribunal, it was not the intention of the Parties to litigate the Site Plan through the 10-day Hearing. Instead, the intent was to have the Hearing on the OPA and ZBA followed by a re-submission of the Site Plan, which might result in the Site Plan appeal being adjourned sine die at a future time.
NEXT STEPS
17After a further discussion in which the Parties confirmed that 10 days would be sufficient, the Tribunal concurred with the Parties’ estimation and scheduled a 10-day Hearing of the Merits from Monday, April 28, 2025 at 10 a.m. until Friday, May 9, 2025, by Video Hearing.
18Parties are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885
Access Code: 344-779-885
19Parties are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting, or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
20Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application, or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1 (888) 299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is as indicated above.
21Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the Hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing events may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
22The Parties were directed to revise the draft PO to reflect the above hearing dates and to submit it on or before Thursday, May 16, 2024. It was subsequently received and reviewed. Subject to minor amendments, which had been discussed at the CMC, the Tribunal approved the PO, and it will govern the proceedings up to and including the Hearing.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
23The Tribunal encouraged the Parties to seek opportunities for settlement or narrowing of the issues and highlighted the availability of Tribunal-led mediation.
24One of the Participants inquired whether they (the Participants) would be part of any mediation. It was explained that mediation is a voluntary process involving the statutory Parties (in this case, the Appellant and the City), who would decide whether to involve any others in the process.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
a. Participant status is granted to:
York Mills Neighbours Association;
Peter Arrowsmith;
James Li;
Andrew Nicholson;
Victoria Colby;
Athina Thompson;
Ian and Nathalie MacInnis; and,
Steve Yudin.
b. A Hearing is scheduled to proceed as detailed in paragraph [17].
c. The Procedural Order attached as Schedule A to this Order is approved and will govern the proceedings.
26The Member is not seized.
27No further notice is required or will be given.
“S. Bobka”
S. BOBKA
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
SCHEDULE A